MovieChat Forums > The FBI Story Discussion > Webster's definition of 'murder'.

Webster's definition of 'murder'.

posted 13 years ago by hobnob53
4 replies | jump to latest

In his opening narration, James Stewart (playing agent Chip Hardesty) intones, "Webster's International Dictionary defines 'murder' as 'The unlawful taking of a human life.' On a November evening in 1955, the definition became obsolete. A mass murder was being planned."

Now, that sounds very weighty and meaningful, but it's a ridiculous statement -- not to mention contradictory, even in the context of the very next sentence.

What, "murder" only applies to the taking of one life? Killing 6 or 12 or 43 or 3000 is something else? Not to mention the fact that in that very next sentence Chip says a "mass murder" was being planned. Aside from the number involved, he's just contradicted himself by referring to this mass killing as a "murder".

Murder is murder, the unlawful taking of human life, whether of 1 or 1000. Such a stupid remark, made the worse because of the screenwriter's clumsy attempt to make this sound portentous and coolly professional.

[–] fnj2002 12 years ago

Your splitting of hairs aside for the moment, if your quote is accurate, the character's statement is completely bogus due to being insufficiently specific.

Murder is unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder|abc). It requires both malice and premeditation. There are other forms of unlawfully killing a person (manslaughter for one, where malice and/or premeditation are absent), and there is lawful killing of a person (sanctioned action in war obviously; justifiable homicide in self defense of course).

Whether it is one person or 100 people is completely irrelevant to the definition. If you murder 100 people, you get 100 counts of murder.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

I fail to see how you can accuse me of "splitting hairs" (which in any case isn't what I did) when you then proceed to completely agree with, and expound upon, everything I wrote.

And yes, the quote (not "my" quote) is indeed accurate, word-for-word.

[–] scribe1270 12 years ago

I think they were talking more about the scope of the crime rather than the crime itself. Murder is murder whether 1 or 1000, but back at the time the story is set such things just weren't commonplace outside of a war zone. Even Jack the Ripper (who is believed to have killed at least 5 people) didn't kill multiple people at one time. He did kill two in the same evening according to evidence (he was interrupted during his 1st kill that evening) but he didn't kill all of his victims at one stroke like the bomber of the airplane did. Some say that the Hindenberg was destroyed by sabotage but they don't have clear proof of it, but the reason for the destruction of the airplane in the movie is clear. It was a bomb and it did kill everyone on board. So in essence it did redefine murder even if it was just a matter of the number of victims killed at one time.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

At the risk of the previous poster once again falsely accusing me of "splitting hairs", and while I understand your point, I still say (hairs unsplit):

First, that the definition of "murder" wasn't made obsolete by this mass killing. One could argue that it may have been expanded, or as you say "in essence" redefined, but that doesn't change or make obsolete the original definition;

Second, while I see that argument, I strongly disagree, for the reasons I've stated -- simply, that murder is murder. Period. Regardless of the number of the victims; and

Third, Stewart's statement does contradict itself, his declaring that the dictionary definition of "murder" was rendered obsolete, then a few seconds later intoning that "a mass murder was being planned". Since the dictionary definition says only that murder was "the unlawful taking of human life" -- not "of a human life" -- then, literally by definition, the initial definition still applies.